Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Jesus Creed

Home
Evangelical
Tradition and Our Way of Life (RJS)

Tradition and Our Way of Life (RJS)

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 10:15 pm by RJS

Tradition and Our Way of Life (RJS) 2015-03-13T22:15:35-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

What role should tradition play when it comes to theology and biblical interpretation?

This is a significant question, and one that comes up quite often in discussions of the relationship between science (or other areas of study) and Christian faith. It isn’t a new question of course, but one that has played a role in Christian thinking for centuries. Is a new perspective wrong (whether on Paul or Genesis or something else) simply because it requires a change in thinking and biblical interpretation? What weight should we give to the various confessions, creeds, and statements of faith?

The answer isn’t to toss them all in the trash. Personally I find a great deal of value in the Apostle’s Creed. The scientific “fact” that the dead don’t rise has no impact on this creed and those who claim it does are missing the point. No one claims that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a natural event. And as a one-off that happened to a specific individual, the evidence for and against lies in its impact on others. It left no other residue in the record.

Other questions are not as easily resolved. Many feel threatened when new ideas challenge traditional positions and traditional interpretations. As we try to move forward today, it is useful to reflect on the past and to learn from mistakes and successes. David Livingstone, Professor of Geography and Intellectual History at Queen’s University, Belfast takes the opportunity in his new book Dealing With Darwin to explore the way place, politics and rhetoric influenced the reception of Darwin’s ideas in the late nineteenth century.

A “Heresy” Trial. One event Livingstone digs into is the rather sensational ouster of James Woodrow from his position at the Southern Presbyterian Seminary in Columbia, South Carolina in the 1880’s. “It was a grand spectacle, which at the time, made headline news. The New York Times, under the banner “Woodrow’s Heresy Trial”, reported that the “largest congregation so far of the General Assembly” gathered for the hearing.” (p. 117) . James Woodrow, uncle of Woodrow Wilson, held the Perkins Chair at the seminary. This was a professorship established to unite science and theology, to combat the threats that science could pose through “cool-headed, knowledgeable reflection, not the knee-jerk dismissal of the “religious zealot” who “denounced as Infidels and Atheists” the advocates of every new scientific advance.” (p. 135) A cool-headed, knowledgeable reflection on science and theology ultimately led to his dismissal. (Although not every response to his critics was cool-headed, and his rhetoric at times fanned the flames.)

Woodrow was not a particularly “liberal” thinker (theologically liberal or politically liberal).

Woodrow was a firm believer in the “divine inspiration of every word” in the Bible, and a self-proclaimed advocate of its”absolute inerrancy.” (p. 117)

(He was also, like most of his fellow Southerners, a confirmed racist, and felt that the Bible did not condemn slavery.)

He warned of two destructive attitudes in the science-faith arena (p. 137):

1. A dogmatic adherence to opinions which may not be well founded, and the denunciation as infidel what ever differs from our own.

2. A facile acceptance of every novel and attractive hypothesis which may spring up in the field of science.

He held that there are questions that are addressed by scripture and questions that are not. Evolution was not theistic or atheistic, but merely descriptive. This was true in of animals in general, and of humans as well.

His aim was to defend the proposal that the body of Adam may have been produced by evolutionary processes from pre-human life forms, though he insisted repeatedly … that the soul was the product of immediate divine creation. (p. 120)

Because to him evolution was another term for “mediate creation” – the view that God’s creative activity in the world was mediated through secondary agencies – he could not see “how anyone could hesitate to prefer the hypothesis of mediate creation to the hypothesis of immediate creation.” As for the objection that evolution degraded the human race by tracing it to animal forbears, Woodrow was far from convinced that “dirt is nobler than the highest organization which God had up to that time created on the earth.” (p. 120)

Woodrow was also disturbed that his adversaries focused on the impact that his views had on their preferred interpretations of Scripture. He felt that this drove a wedge between local and universal Christianity. No one should be obliged to teach only received interpretations. The church universal is larger and more varied than the church local.

His chief antagonist in the case was John Girardeau who occupied the chair of didactic and polemic theology at the Seminary. Girardeau didn’t accuse Woodrow of heresy, at least not at first. According to Livingstone

In large part Girardeau’s disquiet centered on what he saw as a church’s right to determine precisely what its own seminary should teach. The question was not about orthodoxy in any absolute sense; it was simply about the need to ban the teaching of anything “contrary to our church’s interpretation of the Bible.” To him what was at stake was the heritage of an entire culture. … For any church to “surrender” to “unverified hypotheses” was an altogether “wretched” business. But even “a proved truth of science,” Girardeau declared, “ought not to be inculcated in a theological seminary when it contradicts our Standards.” The Woodrow case was plainly about a lot more than evolution: it was about the very survival of the entire edifice of Southern Presbyterian culture. Any professor failing to accede to the strictures of traditionalism was guilty of intolerable rebelliousness. (p. 125)

In 1884 Woodrow was asked to resign, he declined, was fired, and appealed. The process involved a spiral into increasingly vitriolic rhetoric. Some from both sides, but especially from Woodrow’s opponents.

The story ends there – and not all that badly. James Woodrow became a professor at and later the president of South Carolina College (now the University of South Carolina) an institution he guided through a particularly troubled time. He remained a minister in good standing and (according to wikipedia) served as moderator of the Augusta Presbytery in 1888 and as moderator of the Synod of Georgia in 1901 (or moderator of the Synod of South Carolina in another source). Not exactly deemed a heretic, we see.

The issue was not really science or evolution. This is not a unique incident in the history of US Christianity. Whenever such an event occurs there is generally a deep history. The time and place are important. After relating the specific events, Livingstone digs deeper into the context of this particular event. Despite the claims of many, including Andrew Dickson White who includes the story in his History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, there was much more to this than a simple story of warfare between science and Christian faith. Woodrow was a devout Christian, and he was not accused of heresy. For many of Woodrow’s antagonists the primary factor at play appears to have been the preservation of Southern civilization.

The South’s social and hierarchical social structure was grounded in Christianity. More than this, it was grounded in a particular favored reading of scripture including the early chapters of Genesis. Theirs was a reading that supported the unity of the human race, but also supported rigid racial divisions and the institution of slavery. According to Livingstone Woodrow challenged the received interpretation of scripture and this was a serious threat to the very foundation of the southern way of life. Woodrow was a threat despite the fact that he was racist and was not an abolitionist. This comes to light in the form that the many varied arguments take. They are not really grounded in theology, but in the effect that a change in interpretation might have on southern culture. Given this background it probably didn’t help that Woodrow was born in England and grew up in Chilicothe, Ohio before moving South.

Livingstone concludes:

Occupying a prominent position in the culture of the Old South, antebellum Presbyterians had come to regard biblical orthodoxy as the foundation stone of southern social order. … A crucial component in the ideological apologetics of southern Presbyterians was their conviction that an honest-to-goodness, unadulterated reading of the Bible provided ample warrant for the institution of slavery and, later, for racial segregation. Abolitionist attacks on the South were seen as rationalistic assaults on the integrity of scripture and the Christian character of southern culture. The Bible was thus appealed to as a means of resisting a host of perceived Yankee evils – radical democracy, emancipation, higher criticism, and modern science. These were seen as subversive of what was taken to be a biblically sanctioned southern culture and as promoting godless notions of human equality. (p. 155-156)

And

Darwinian evolution was simple the newest garb under which treacherous science masqueraded in its ongoing plot to demolish the foundations of southern civilization. (p. 156)

Most of us today see little support for slavery in scripture, and certainly no grounds for support of racial separation and race based slavery. We have other pet ideas though, grounded in an interpretation of scripture. Some of these may be as troublesome to the next generation as slavery is to ours.

How do we know when we are confronted with a genuine threat to Christian orthodox faith?

What should we do when the reasons given are adherence to a preferred local interpretation, or clearly grounded in fear?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

November 4, 2014

Singing as a Spiritual Discipline (Sean Palmer)

Next Post

November 4, 2014 Jesus as the Means, the "Good Fairy"

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does Jesus say about loving only those who love you?

Select your answer to see how you score.

It's hard to do It's required Even sinners do that It's most important